arXiv AI

arXiv:2610.27524v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code agents increasingly work on evolving real repositories, and memory systems aim to help them reuse earlier experience. However, such experience is diverse and evolving, so it remains unclear how memory systems organize it and thereby affect code agents. Existing benchmarks cannot answer this reliably because they lack either temporally valid histories or control over prior-task relevance. In this paper, we present MemDev-Bench to evaluate how memory systems affect code agents over diverse repository histories. It pairs each task with relevance-annotated earlier tasks from the same repository to build histories with controlled relevance. We also build an automated pipeline that reliably makes these earlier tasks executable and verifiable, producing 4,869 historical tasks for 555 base tasks. Based on MemDev-Bench, our systematic evaluation of memory systems across diverse development scenarios yields three main findings. (1) Memory mainly improves fine-grained localization and editing, increasing functional correctness. (2) Memory also causes failures on otherwise solvable tasks even with related history, and unrelated history tends to increase such failures. These failures mainly stem from agents reusing memory without reassessing its applicability. (3) Compared with using memory systems, directly providing agents with raw historical trajectories substantially reduces their steps. Further analysis suggests that agents save these steps by reusing process information that compressed memories tend to omit. These results suggest that future memory systems should preserve process information and reassess memory applicability against current task context.

arXiv:2610.27518v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every day, more than 40 million people ask ChatGPT a health question, such as whether laptop posture explains a stiff neck and days of pounding headache. Posture is plausible, but meningitis is a time-critical possibility. We introduce SelfDx, a paired benchmark for whether models have the appropriate response behavior, a form of epistemic independence, in health questions where misplaced agreement with the user's self-diagnosis could delay urgent or emergency care. Each of 100 pairs contrasts a caution case, where a serious alternative remains possible, with an agreement case, where the user supplies evidence that rules out the alternative and it is safe for the model to agree. We find across 27 frontier models that they tend to inappropriately agree with the user's self-diagnosis in cases that require caution. Even the best current-generation model reaches only a 77.0% appropriate caution rate on time-critical condition cases. To address this gap, we experiment with three prompt variants that increase appropriate caution but reduce appropriate agreement by 9-35%, indicating excessive caution. In contrast, supervised fine-tuning on 128 balanced examples improves both rates together across three runs. We recommend post-training to improve appropriate caution without making models cautious on every case, with paired evaluation to verify both response behaviors.

arXiv:2610.27512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fine-grained liquid identification requires a classifier to distinguish similar substances from compact millimeter-wave measurements. We investigate structured-token attention, which represents a radar feature tensor through complementary antenna, feature, branch, and global views. The proposed StructAttn model embeds these views into eleven tokens and combines them with a three-layer transformer. Experiments on the public FG-LiquID data cover 30 liquids and 3,000 samples. Over five seeds on the released split, StructAttn achieves 96.70\% mean best-epoch accuracy, matching the original-recipe MMNet baseline and exceeding a scalar-token attention model by 1.50 percentage points. A five-seed probability ensemble reaches 97\%, corresponding to 18 errors among 600 test samples. Final-epoch and five-fold results complement the checkpoint-selected comparison, with StructAttn obtaining 95.30\% out-of-fold accuracy. Token and feature analyses show that structured views are useful for prediction, while residual confusions concentrate in water, soft-drink, and edible-oil classes. These results support structured tokenization as a practical design choice for attention-based liquid recognition.

arXiv:2610.27488v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Practitioner guidance holds that a large language model reviews a document better when the work is divided among agents. We test a narrow form of it in a controlled comparison of single-agent and multi-agent setups on a financial task, reviewing credit assessment memos against requirements. One agent checks six requirements in one call. A team of three on the same model checks the same memo, two requirements each, in the same words, with no roles or later stage. Labels are known for every requirement on 300 synthetic memos, so misses and false alarms are measured separately. Two primary predictions are tested on four models at a Bonferroni-corrected level. Under an instruction to decide each requirement once, the team catches 0.08 to 0.10 more of the defects that carry an explanation on the three models whose single agent misses some, at the corrected level on two. It raises more false alarms on all four, at the corrected level on three. Balanced accuracy, an exploratory measure, changes by 0.02 or less, and the team uses 2.2 to 2.4 times the tokens. Showing each agent the requirements it was not given reduces the added false alarms on the two Claude models, at the corrected level on one. In exploratory comparisons, sampling the single agent three times and flagging on any draw gives higher balanced accuracy than the team on those models, and the team's results depend on the instruction.

arXiv:2610.27483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The growing use of autonomous artificial intelligence agents in digital commerce creates new security concerns involving agent impersonation, unauthorized payments, compromised agents, and misuse of delegated authority. This research introduces the Autonomous Commerce Agent Guard System (ACAGS), a cybersecurity framework combining supervised machine learning, behavioral analytics, agent-specific authorization controls, and explainable AI. The framework was evaluated using synthetic financial transaction data augmented with simulated agent characteristics and five adversarial scenarios. XGBoost was selected following comparisons with alternative classifiers. Across ten experimental runs, behavioral features improved mean F1-score from 52.12% to 67.49%, with agent-specific features increasing performance to 69.46%. The framework achieved detection rates of 99.77% for abnormal agent behavior, 99.73% for impersonation, and 100% for malicious delegation and authorization-scope violations. Compromised-agent detection reached 72.27%. ACAGS also supported APPROVE, REVIEW, and REJECT authorization outcomes, with SHAP explanations providing model interpretability. The results demonstrate the potential of combining behavioral intelligence and delegated authorization controls to strengthen simulated agentic-commerce payment security, while highlighting the need for validation using real-world transactions.

arXiv:2610.27480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model agents increasingly participate in operational workflows where approvals, binds, and payments create commitments. An approval valid when issued may no longer authorize execution after relevant facts, evidence, policy, or authority change. We call this the evaluation--execution gap. We specify a state-bound runtime assurance layer that separates probabilistic measurement from deterministic adjudication, binds an execution allowance to the decision-relevant basis of an approval, invalidates that allowance after relevant logged changes, and rechecks admissibility at dispatch. This distinguishes the continued validity of a prior approval from a current-state policy check. We describe eight failure modes, an assurance model, a reference architecture, and prospective interventions with retrospective remediation. In a scripted 42-case replay, the state-bound configuration identifies 15 later-invalidated approvals that a deliberately non-re-evaluating point-in-time comparator does not revisit; it holds 14 affected actions before dispatch and compensates one landed effect. These results illustrate behavior under the stipulated policies and event orders, not superiority over dispatch-time enforcement designs or production effectiveness. Under explicit interception, ingestion, dependency, and serialization assumptions, the model establishes dispatch-time validity within the registered execution surface.

arXiv:2610.27465v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent platforms are starting to improve their own agents: they read a deployed agent's execution traces, derive a change, have an automated verifier approve it, and release it with no human author. How much of this loop can safely run without a human? We propose two quantities a platform can measure. Verifier strength $\sigma$ is how well the available verifier -- often an LLM judge -- agrees with a trusted reference verifier; it limits how much a step can improve the agent. Recoverability is how cheaply a bad change can be undone: whether undoing it needs a new verifier approval, and how much of the old behavior a rollback restores. A step should run unattended only if both are adequate. On our platform this rule allows prompt, tool and skill edits to run unattended and keeps weight updates under human sign-off. Our main contribution is these two definitions and how to measure them. We built a platform that applies the rule and tested it in two ways: on the platform's own approval gate, and in controlled experiments on the $\tau^2$-bench agent benchmark. On verifier strength, the platform's LLM judge sometimes gave the same score no matter what it was shown (9 of 37 settings) and reported no error, so a verifier can look healthy while approving anything; its strength must be measured, and two simple tests catch the failure. On recoverability, restoring a saved copy brought the agent back to its original behavior, but a regenerated undo did not, so only changes whose old version is kept can be reversed without a human; and while a change was deployed, it altered the outcome of 17 percent of tasks beyond normal run-to-run variation, which no undo repairs. Together these support the rule: a change can run unattended only when its old version is kept and its verifier's strength has been measured.

arXiv:2610.27450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: On-policy distillation (OPD) can succeed with surprisingly few training questions, motivating a view of questions as carriers of distributional knowledge transfer. How can we assess whether a newly generated question is valuable for distillation, and learn to generate better questions---without access to its correct answer? We introduce Ask-to-Distill (\method), a framework that treats synthetic questions as distribution elicitors and optimizes the teacher supervision they expose along student-generated trajectories. A student-initialized synthesizer is optimized using a distributional surrogate for question value, computed from a frozen student--teacher pair without reference answers, correctness rewards, or per-candidate student updates. The reward combines teacher--student disagreement with teacher probability mass on the student's candidate support, together with length and diversity controls. The generated questions are filtered and deduplicated into a prompt-only bank for standard OPD. Across mathematical reasoning, code generation, and agentic tasks, our method improves average performance and teacher-gap recovery over unoptimized student-generated prompts and KL-filtered real questions, while matching or exceeding real-bank OPD in the evaluated settings. Signal analyses further show that optimized questions can elicit denser supervision and more total signal from shorter student responses, supporting elicited distributional supervision as an objective for synthetic distillation data. Our code, data and models are publicly available at https://github.com/GasolSun36/Ask_to_Distill.

arXiv:2610.27435v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon terminal agents may solve a task in one run yet fail across repeated runs. Stochastic errors can propagate through actions and context, creating a gap between capability and reliable execution. We present RiseHarness, a framework for iteratively improving agent harnesses with model weights fixed. It focuses on flipping tasks with both successful and failed runs under the same configuration, using successful runs as references for failure analysis. RiseHarness combines agent trajectories with internal harness traces from a runtime monitor to examine how model actions interact with command execution, feedback, context management, and completion decisions. A Harness Handbook links this evidence to harness behaviors and source code, helping identify recurring problems in mechanisms shared across tasks. RiseHarness then searches other harness frameworks for relevant implementations and adapts them as design references to the current model and execution protocol. Candidate changes undergo behavioral checks and repeated task evaluation; versions with measured gains seed the next iteration. This loop integrates suitable mechanisms from different frameworks into a single harness and uses new execution evidence to guide further changes. We evaluate task success and reliability across models, ablate harness execution evidence and external research, and test transfer to unseen benchmarks with the same model. RiseHarness treats a specific model as the unit of harness adaptation, studying how changes to shared interaction mechanisms can make existing capabilities more reliable across tasks.

arXiv:2610.27417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A failed gaming trajectory reveals that an agent needs intervention, but not necessarily how its execution harness should change. Effective harness adaptation therefore requires gathering diagnostic evidence, rather than merely proposing alternative recovery rules. We present KPHarness, a framework that adapts the external execution harness of a frozen vision-language-action model through knowledge-probing co-evolution. Recovery knowledge supplies context-specific intervention hypotheses that guide active probing; probe outcomes reveal when these hypotheses apply and provide evidence for refining both recovery knowledge and later probe selection. This reciprocal process allows the harness to improve not only which interventions it applies, but also how it investigates failures. KPHarness separates fast policy execution from a slow research loop that translates accumulated knowledge and probing evidence into bounded harness revisions. Each revision is compared with the incumbent under matched sandbox conditions and accepted only when the paired evaluation shows improvement. Recoveries supported by further validation are retained for cross-task reuse, while immediate interaction feedback and delayed episode-success credit update action- and knowledge-probing policies during adaptation. Experiments on Minecraft tasks spanning mining, combat, and crafting show improved task coverage over bare policy execution, a manually specified fixed harness, and knowledge-only harness evolution with non-adaptive probing. Evaluation on previously unseen tasks further shows improved task completion with the evolved harness, knowledge bank, and probing policies held fixed,

arXiv:2610.27406v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents can improve across tasks without updating model parameters by storing experience from their own executions in external memory and reusing it to guide later decisions. A central design question is whether to retain only observed trajectories and outcomes or also the rules, summaries, and skills inferred from them. Retaining these abstractions allows agents to reuse strategies without repeatedly deriving them from raw trajectories. However, errors in stored abstractions can propagate to subsequent decisions through retrieval and reuse. They can also shape execution trajectories, which then become the basis for new abstractions that reproduce the original errors. We term this feedback mechanism error reproduction: errors are regenerated through a cycle of abstraction, execution, and re-abstraction, extending their persistence beyond direct reuse of the original faulty knowledge. We propose Anti-Persistence, a memory design that accumulates trajectories and outcomes while reconstructing task-specific guidance on demand. An adaptive selector uses prior outcomes to decide whether and how to synthesize guidance, which is discarded after execution. This prevents its direct reuse as a stored object, although indirect feedback through retained trajectories remains possible. Across different benchmarks and backbones, Anti-Persistence achieves higher overall held-out success and the lowest average LLM-call cost among the evaluated memory designs. These results support separating experience accumulation from abstraction persistence in memorybased self-improvement.

arXiv:2610.27400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are moving beyond reactive responses toward proactive assistance that anticipates user needs without explicit requests. However, existing proactive agents primarily address immediate needs, while many everyday situations involve delayed intentions that can only be acted on hours or days later. Humans handle such intentions through prospective memory, the ability to remember to act on an intention when the right moment arises. In this paper, we introduce ProMemAgent, the first proactive agent to incorporate prospective memory over everyday sensory contexts for long-horizon proactive assistance. ProMemAgent organizes past sensory perceptions (e.g., egocentric video and audio) into context-aware memory, generating prospective cues and linking earlier events with subsequent developments for future retrieval. Given the current context, it retrieves relevant past events and performs memory-augmented proactive reasoning to determine whether assistance is needed. We further introduce CPMBench, the first benchmark for evaluating long-horizon proactive assistance over sensory contexts, comprising 1,000 instances across eight everyday categories. Extensive experiments show that ProMemAgent achieves the best memory retrieval performance and consistently outperforms all baselines on long-horizon proactive assistance.

arXiv:2610.27398v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Probabilities of causation (PoCs) have developed steadily, from the binary measures first introduced by Pearl to the non-binary setting recently studied by Shu et al. As the theory has matured, PoCs have found applications in a growing range of areas, including personalized medicine, marketing and legal attribution. Shu et al. proposed closed-form bounds for multi-valued treatments and outcomes and proved them valid, but left their sharpness in high dimensions open. We close this gap with a mathematical proof. We further show that $\PNS$, $\PSub$, $\PRep$ and $\PN$ are all special cases of a single, more general formula. Combined with their equivalence classes, this settles the question of sharp bounds for discrete PoCs from experimental and observational data: in every dimension, they are given in closed form by a single theorem.

arXiv:2610.27397v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Learned post-training quantization (PTQ) calibration fits quantizer parameters on a small calibration set, and for a text embedder the natural supervision is retrieval relevance. We ask two questions that are usually conflated: how far to calibrate, and whether to calibrate at all. Across three embedders (e5-base-v2, BGE-M3, EmbeddingGemma-300m) at 4-bit weight quantization, 161 calibration runs, the outcome of a fixed procedure ranges from a gain to catastrophic degradation, and the driver is the dose of the update, measured as the functional displacement D_func of the quantized model from its uncalibrated start. On EmbeddingGemma the same learning-rate grid gives +1.47 to -71.53 points of in-domain NDCG@10 change; a label-free cosine objective collapses at the same dose (-69.52 vs -71.63), so the collapse is a property of learnable calibration rather than of retrieval supervision. Objective sensitivity is heterogeneous: on e5, ranking calibration is substantially more robust than cosine at matched displacement (+14.16 +/- 4.34 pp, 95% t-CI [+3.37, +24.96], three paired slates), whereas on BGE-M3 the ordering is directionally opposite but unresolved ([-5.18, +2.38]). Dose is the main axis but not a sufficient statistic: equal D_func reached along different paths differs by up to 1.61 pp. We therefore treat calibration as an optional intervention. A pre-registered rule that accepts a checkpoint only when a per-query paired confidence interval on a 25% calibration-validation split clears the uncalibrated baseline was run on 6 independent slates and five arms. It never selected a checkpoint below its slate's baseline (0 harmful selections in 30 decisions), retained 8 of 11 beneficial updates, and paid a mean oracle regret of 1.52 pp with one abstention that forfeited 11.13 pp, a safety-opportunity trade-off, not a free improvement. We report what remains open, including label efficiency.

arXiv:2610.27393v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mechanistic interpretability asks which language model components matter for a behavior, and activation patching answers by changing one component's activation and measuring its effect, at a cost growing with components and prompts. Attribution patching estimates these effects from one gradient pass, but its estimates can be far off, and verifying each one restores the cost. Can the structure of these errors reduce this cost? We propose Guided-AP, which uses a few exact measurements to reveal attribution patching's errors and correct unmeasured estimates. On a single prompt, many components' errors share one sign, so a small exact sample yields one correction for the rest. Over many prompts of one task, components are misestimated similarly, so a few measured prompts show what to verify and how to correct each component's average effect. Our analysis shows that choosing what to verify needs error size, while correction also needs sign. On a single prompt, the correction lowers error by up to 26% across three behaviors at the compute of verifying the largest estimates and also on larger models. Over many prompts, learned corrections cut the error of average effects on factual completion by 75% to 79%, repaying their cost in long analyses.

arXiv:2610.27377v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents now autonomously complete long-horizon tasks, such as repository-level coding, through hundreds of think-act steps, yet the experience each run produces is rarely reused on the next. Prior memory systems concentrate on retrieval, finding the most relevant past trajectory. Retrieval cannot observe the running agent, so it cannot decide whether the agent needs an experience, at which point, or for how long. We introduce REM (Reusable Experience Memory), a framework that manages the memory lifecycle from inside the agent's think-act loop through three explicit decisions. What to store: each completed trajectory is consolidated into a phase-structured document, two orders of magnitude smaller than the trajectory. When to recall: the document is injected at the start of the task; the costlier implementation record is withheld until an in-loop gate detects the agent struggling. What to forget: the record is evicted after a single exposure. On repository-level bug fixing (SWE-ContextBench Lite), REM retrieves the related trajectory more accurately than every state-of-the-art memory system (68.7% vs. 55.6% match@1) and improves, in every replicate, end-task resolution (27.6% vs. 24.9%) at 17% lower cost. Injecting the same experience as a summary or raw trajectory, even when oracle-retrieved, does not. Ablating any of the three decisions reduces resolution. Altogether, these results demonstrate that the bottleneck in experience reuse is not retrieval fidelity but how experience is stored and governed across its lifecycle, opening a control-theoretic perspective on agent memory.

arXiv:2610.27347v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Checking whether a text complies with a body of law is slow when done by hand and fragile when done with keyword rules. This paper presents ComplianceAgent, the legal compliance sub-agent of COMPASS, a multi-agent framework that evaluates texts along four axes: digital sovereignty, carbon impact, compliance, and ethics. The agent relies on a large language model that scores a text on a fixed rubric, grounds its judgment in a reference legal corpus, and, when the score falls at or below a critical threshold, runs a corrective chain made of self-healing rewrites, a compliance label, an explainability report, and escalation to a human reviewer. We describe what the language model does at each step, how the memory of the agent is organized, and how the same implementation can be pointed at different reference corpora. We evaluate the agent in a Canadian and Quebec context, on a corpus of thirteen legal instruments that brings together federal and provincial texts, international treaties, and municipal documents of the City of Trois-Rivi\`eres. The evaluation relies on a hand-annotated gold standard of fifteen texts and combines classification metrics, a repeated-query stability test, retrieval precision, and a composite score. On this gold standard the agent separates every conforming text from every non-conforming one, its scores remain stable under repeated queries, and the index returns relevant passages.

arXiv:2610.27337v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The research idea in a published paper is rarely the project's initial idea. Between the two lies a closed-loop process in which researchers run experiments, derive insights, identify challenges, explore the literature, and revise the idea, with each step motivated by evidence and reasoning they can articulate. We call the path one idea takes through this process, with the evidence and reasoning behind each step, its authentic research trajectory. Although it underlies every scientific contribution, it is rarely recorded. Existing LLM-based research agents generate an idea once, refine it against reviews, literature, or their own experimental results, or search over candidate ideas and experiments. In all of them the text of the idea evolves, while the evidence and reasoning that connected one version to the next are discarded. We propose the Research Progress Graph (RPG), a representation of authentic and complete research trajectories. An RPG records the evolution of an idea as typed research states connected by cognitive transitions, each annotated with a temporal index and the reasoning behind it, which makes this evolution an explicit object of study. We ground the representation in authentic trajectories whose steps their authors justify in annotations and papers. Comparing the representations of thirty-five research agents with the RPG, we find that each is an incomplete RPG; none keeps the state that changed, the evidence that changed it, and the reasoning connecting them as one evolving record. Modeling ideation with the RPG changes how research agents should be designed, evaluated, and trained. Agents predict the next research state instead of a complete idea, ideas are evaluated as trajectories instead of final texts, and authentic trajectories serve as training data. These directions shift research agents from generating static ideas to modeling how ideas evolve.

arXiv:2610.27327v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding agents can answer analytical questions over a data lake by discovering, cleaning, and joining the relevant data. However, they discard this work after each question and redo it from scratch for the next one. Tool evolution, which automatically builds and refines reusable tools across tasks, is a natural fit for this repetition. Since a ground-truth label for a data-lake question requires an expert to solve it first, we consider the unsupervised setting. We propose TEAL (Tool Evolution for Analytics over data Lakes), which evolves a library of tools and usage skills for a given Worker agent without labels. Two agents propose tools from complementary evidence, an Explorer from the data lake itself and a Critic from Worker trajectories. A proposed change is kept only if the Worker adopts the tool on a rerun without extra steps and any changed answer is supported by trajectory evidence. We also introduce TEAL-Q, which generates synthetic questions for tool evolution when real ones are unavailable. We evaluate on KramaBench and LakeQA with four Worker LLMs under step budgets, which cap the number of steps the Worker may take per question. With a tight budget of 10 or 15 steps, TEAL improves every Worker on both benchmarks, lifting Sonnet-5 at 15 steps by 9.3 points on KramaBench and 21.7 points on LakeQA. A tighter budget also yields better feedback for evolution. For example, Sonnet-5's LakeQA library evolved at 20 steps and deployed unchanged at 30 steps scores 68.3, above both the baseline (59.6) and a library evolved directly at 30 steps (64.2). Additionally, a library evolved on synthetic questions performs comparably to one evolved on real questions. These results show that useful tools can be evolved without labels, and hopefully inspire future work on what to evolve and how to obtain feedback in unsupervised agent evolution.

arXiv:2610.27305v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Industrial artificial intelligence (AI) planning systems combine predictive models, optimization logic, controls, and governance rules, but improvement in the complete policy does not show whether one addition made an independent contribution or whether that contribution justifies its burden. We address this attribution problem with an observable evidence standard that separates opportunity to act, executed-plan change, operational consequence, equivalence, uncertainty, and operating scope. Using forecast-to-plan replay on Favorita, M5, and Walmart data, we apply the standard to heterogeneous planning additions. Three limits of single-indicator evaluation emerge. First, a composite policy can conceal negligible component contribution: one control changed only 15 of 681 executed plans. Second, changing execution does not guarantee stable benefit: the evaluated multi-period capability helped in several long-lead settings but was 7.6% more costly under tight capacity. Third, indirect evidence can prioritize review but cannot complete attribution. Independent runs produced different paths in 19 of 599 cases that a rule-based check predicted would be unchanged. Although a lower-cost diagnostic matched the full-evaluation winner in only 55.0% of cases, it selected an option within the $10^{-6}$ cost-equivalence tolerance in 79.5%; the remaining cases prevented the proxy from authorizing acceptance. These experiments establish capability-level contribution evidence; the organization completes the value decision by weighing it against implementation and sustaining burden. The resulting capability evidence record links the observations to validation, deployment scope, fallback, monitoring, redesign, and retirement decisions.